Disney’s Moana was a fantastic animated musical, and one of the main reasons why has to do with its handling of the female protagonist, Moana herself.

The animation studio was essentially founded on the cornerstone of the “princess” being a driving force of fairy tale movies, which eventually evolved into increasingly more diverse types of stories. Specifically, Snow White laid the groundwork as one of the best films of all time (animated or otherwise), as well Disney’s first feature film. And they later built upon this with Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty as smart ways to repeat Snow White‘s massive success.

This ended up being a saving grace for Disney after multiple near-catastrophes with bad box office, animator strikes, and so on, though Walt still believed in experimenting with non-princess movies like Peter Pan, Pinocchio, Dumbo, and of course, Mary Poppins.

Long after his death in 1966, the Disney Princess transformed from an idea to an actual media franchise worth an insane amount of money and indicative of Disney’s influence over generations of children. In the early 2000s, it became an official thing, combining the classic Disney princesses of the old days with recent heroines of the 90s renaissance. And the criteria, at the time, was confusing to say the least.

Obviously, Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora were “inducted” into the official Disney Princess brand. Joining them was Ariel from The Little Mermaid, another obvious choice though different in the sense that she’s royalty of an underwater culture. Then Belle from Beauty and the Beast, who doesn’t technically become a princess until the very end of the movie.

Jasmine from Aladdin was another obvious choice, though striking because she was the first Disney princess to be nonwhite, and she’s more of a supporting character than a lead protagonist. Jasmine was followed up by two consecutive nonwhite Disney princesses, though: Pocahontas and Mulan. Though Tinker Bell from Peter Pan was technically a Disney Princess for a short time before getting replaced by Tiana and becoming a home video sensation.

They didn’t include Nala or Kiara from Lion King, which seems to be because animals simply don’t qualify. Same goes for Esmerelda from Hunchback of Notre Dame because she’s technically a gypsy, Megara from Hercules, and Jane from Tarzan. The first “modern” princess was Tiana from Princess and the Frog, then Rapunzel from Tangled was added as the first CG character. And the last Disney Princess in the official sense is Merida from Brave, a Pixar movie rather than a Walt Disney Animation one.

These are the “official” Disney princesses, but that hasn’t stopped many other fans from considering the wider breadth of characters to fit the bill. Simply because the criteria isn’t always consistent (like with Tinker Bell and Mulan not being royalty). Eventually, Anna from Frozen will be added along with Moana, but no one really believes their status as princesses is held back until Disney slaps their own label on it and has their clique running around Disney World.

A lot of this might sound a bit silly and inconsequential, but there are actually heated debates held by…some…who argue over which Disney female characters are “allowed” to be called Disney princesses. And this is a big deal, in part, because countless kids look to the mainstream Disney princesses as a representation of themselves in these movies. Parents want their kids to have positive role models, and the Disney princesses, like it or not, are a major cultural force in that regard.

The more recent Disney princess from CG animated films definitely fit the more literal interpretation of what’s become such a pervasive line of business for these animated films. But Moana subtly settles this debate, I believe, once and for all. It points out that the semantics don’t matter, really, as Disney seems intent on including future princesses as it sees fit.

The pivotal line between Maui and Moana is what specifically points this out. Maui tells Moana she is a “princess,” but she denies this because she’s actually the daughter of a Chief (the literal view). But Maui banters back with self-awareness on the writers’ part:

“If you wear a dress and have an animal sidekick, then you’re a princess.”

What he really seems to be saying here is that it doesn’t really matter. What makes these characters “princesses” has very little to do with royal bloodlines and more with the tropes that Disney infuses in its protagonists and supporting characters. A dress and an animal sidekick are incredibly broad. so Disney can in effect say from here on out that there’s no reason to overthink this merchandising franchise they’re so clearly benefiting from.

And that’s fine because it allows Disney to incorporate as many different cultures, hair colors, and clothing styles as they can with their princess characters, but not at the expense of the story making sense. Or worse, always falling back on traditional princess tales instead of doing something as “culturealistic” as Moana and Mulan.

Moving forward, I like to think that this line by Maui was allowed in the movie because they’re acknowledging how limiting it is to hold back the Disney Princess inclusivity for the sake of being so literal. It’s not relevant how these characters look on a family tree, but rather that they’re interesting characters who follow a consistent aesthetic and type of storytelling that’s proven incredibly successful for Disney since the 30s. Maybe one day, it won’t even be questioned whether or not a Disney princess is one because she wears a dress, especially if you consider the fact that they included Merida, a princess who is usually shown with her bow and arrow rather than a bucket of glitter.

But one thing’s for certain. The best Disney princess is obviously Lilo.

Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar.

Pixar’s next big movie, Coco, has so far been mostly shrouded in mystery…until now. The post below is a transcription of the video above.

Coco is the next original Pixar film that isn’t a sequel, but it’s also the last original Pixar film for a few years in a row as the studio releases Incredibles 2 and Toy Story 4.

So obviously, there’s a lot riding on Coco being a superb movie. Because it will have to satisfy our appetites for quite a while, in the same way Inside Out and Good Dinosaur prepared us for Finding Dory and Cars 3.

But until now, we’ve known very little about Coco, a movie about a young Mexican boy who discovers a family secret about his past. The movie was announced in 2012 and was revealed to be centered around the Mexican holiday, Dia de los Muertos, or Day of the Dead. And it’s directed by Lee Unkrich, the director of Toy Story 3, co-directed by Adrian Molina, and produced by longtime Pixar veteran Darla K. Anderson. Yes, that Darla.

I should stress that the information I’m about to share is very plot-heavy, so if you don’t want to know too much about Coco, then you may want to click away.

That said, here’s a bunch of new stuff we just found out about Coco, starting with the basic plot. You can also watch the video at the top of the page, or read the transcription below.

Coco stars Miguel, voiced by 12-year-old newcomer Anthony Gonzalez, a young boy with secret musical ambitions in a Mexican village full of vibrant and festive music-lovers. Unfortunately, his family of shoemakers despises and even forbids music in their household and apparently for good reason: they believe they’ve been cursed by music due to an old family story about Miguel’s great-great-grandfather abandoning his wife, Imelda, in order to become a musical performer. As a result, the family outright bans music.

Secretly, Miguel wants to become like his favorite singer, the now deceased Ernesto de la Cruz, voiced by Benjamin Brett. And he accidentally enters the Land of the Dead believing he has some link to the singer’s ghost.

(Like any good Pixar Theorist, you might be thinking the movie is setting this up to be a reveal that De la Cruz is Miguel’s late great-great-grandfather, but this almost seems too obvious, right?)

Anyway, Miguel explores this beautiful underworld and stumbles across the souls of his family, the Riveras, which includes his great-great-grandmother Imelda. He’s joined by a mischievous skeletal spirit named Hector, who is voiced by Gael García Bernal, and they team up to find De la Cruz somewhere in the Land of the Dead. And of course, there’s a time limit, so Miguel has to do all of this and return to the Land of the Living before he supposedly gets trapped their forever.

Like I said, that’s a lot of information, though the movie is less than a year away and we can expect to learn even more in the coming months. And thanks to Entertainment Weekly, we also have some specific insights from the creators of the movie that you can check out here. For example, Unkrich points out that this is an all-Latino cast, which is pretty new for Disney and Pixar, and he also provides some extra info on the voice cast that you might find interesting.

One last thing: Pixar is telling us that Coco has a ton of music in it, but it’s definitely not a musical, at least in the classical sense. Pixar has never been shy about featuring music beats in their movies (think the Toy Story movies, Monsters Inc., Wall-E, etc.) So it’s interesting to hear that Coco will be pushing that line a bit further since it centers around famous singers. I think we can at least expect a fun soundtrack, if nothing else.

Coco will hit theaters on November 22, 2017, and as always, I’ll be hitting the books on how this movie could potentially speak to the greater Pixar shared universe, if at all, as we learn more about it. For now, let’s all wait patiently for that first teaser.

Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar.

We’ve watched a lot of movies this year, but as we wind down in December, what are the movies we plan to check out in theaters and at home? Featuring special guest and the film critic’s film critic, Will Ashton.

This week, we talked a lot about early reactions to Rogue One: A Star Wars Story and did our standard Show & Tell segment toward the end of the show for a change.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: What was your favorite superhero movie of 2016, if any? Also, what movie from 2016 do you want to see the most that you missed in theaters?

Let us know your thoughts (and your favorite podcast moments) in the comments, which we may read on next week’s show! Also, don’t forget to follow us on Facebook so you can send us direct messages and get podcast updates crazy fast. And be sure to subscribe on iTunes and/or Stitcher, where you can also rate/review the podcast if you like it!

SHOW NOTES:

00:08:30 – Early reactions to Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.

00:36:22 – 2016 movies we haven’t seen yet (that we want to see).

01:19:00 – Our favorite superhero movies of 2016.

01:34:39 – Show and Tell: Jon talks about Titanfall 2, Kayla talks about Skyrim: Special Edition, and Will talks about Life, Animated.

01:43:46 – Feedback: we answer your questions and comments from last week.

From Deadpool to Doctor Strange, here’s how I rank the top superhero movies of the year. The post below is a transcription of the video above, minus some extra commentary at the very end.

It’s pretty obvious at this point in 2016 that the “superhero genre” is here to stay. These movies seize a huge share of box office profits every year, and their mainstream takeover isn’t slowing down in the slightest. Going back a decade, we’ve gotten at least four or five “big” superhero movies a year, sometimes six, and this year saw eight alone, with all but two of them being huge moneymakers and making the top 10 grossers of the year.

I say “superhero” movie, by the way, because things get messy when you try to categorize these films by “comic book.” For the same reason it would get a little hairy if you tried to lump all book adaptation movies together, because they stretch across so many genres and sub genres. With a superhero movie, you’re at least addressing a few basic similarities between movies that are derived from DC, Marvel, and other studios. You have a hero (or heroes) with strange abilities who goes on some type of emotional, action-packed journey.

So this year, I want to point out which superhero movies in 2016 were “better” than others, not just from a film critic standpoint, but also from how they contribute or don’t contribute to the ever-expanding superhero movie genre. I have to leave out two movies in particular because I haven’t seen them: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows and Max Steel. Because I don’t review absolutely everything that comes out, these ended up being on my cutting board of films to review over the summer, and I have no desire to check them out anytime soon.

But the rest of the entries on this list are certainly ones you’ve heard of if you’re a big fan of superhero movies, but in case you haven’t watched them all, I’ll be avoiding any and all spoilers within reason. So let’s begin with the worst of the bunch:

#6 Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

The film critic in me can’t stand this movie. It’s an abomination of narrative, pacing, and character development to the point of almost being a parody. But the DC fan in me has plenty of nice things to say in spite of all that, notably from a visual standpoint. The costumes are incredible, the subject matter is at least interesting in theory, and most of the characters are well-cast with the exception of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.

The strange thing, though, is that despite being such a weak movie overall, it contains some of my favorite superhero moments of 2016, including Batman’s warehouse fight, the Trinity’s stand against Doomsday, and Wonder Woman’s theme music. Unfortunately, these bright spots just don’t overshadow enough of the problems to redeem the rest of this frustrating embarrassment of a superhero movie.

#5 Suicide Squad

For me, Suicide Squad was just a slim margin better than Dawn of Justice, mostly because the standards were set just a little lower thanks to this being a movie about lesser-known characters I’ve always wanted to see on the big screen.

It does have some of the same issues as Dawn of Justice, though, particularly when it comes to style over substance with its visuals and plot. But the characters are mostly fun to watch and suggestive of a bigger, better DCEU we haven’t gotten to see enough of yet.

#4 X-Men: Apocalypse

I actually liked this one quite a bit more than most, mainly because I’ve been hoping for a better realization of these characters since the third X-Men movie, and for the most part, Apocalypse is immensely entertaining lore for longtime fans.

It’s nowhere near perfect, of course, but there are enough great moments here to overlook some of the bland story structure and checklist of characters for Fox to cross off their list. This is one of those superhero movies I walked away from wanting more, which is both a criticism and a complement in this case.

#3 Doctor Strange

Familiarity breeds contempt, and so it goes for some who view Doctor Strange as more of the same from Marvel. And they’re not entirely wrong. This is the origin formula Marvel has been polishing since 2008, complete with a flawed protagonist who has to humble himself after gaining extraordinary powers.

And mileage varies for anyone who appreciates some stunning visual effects that go with the whole package, as you might be one of those viewers who can’t get past folding cities reminding them of Inception, or just someone looking for a breezy, colorful Marvel movie with some clever spins on what’s already worked before.

#2 Deadpool

This was the movie that arguably had the bigger impact on comic book fans this year, even ones who never liked the character much before seeing this movie. And that’s because it’s less a superhero or anti-hero movie and more a self-reflection of the genre itself.

That lended for some great movie moments and humor, but at its core, Deadpool is just barely shy of real greatness, as it only manages to tackle a small handful of neat ideas over and over again, using a formula that’s not far removed from much of what we’ve seen before. It won’t be long before the movie will be remembered as a lightning in the bottle experiment that aged a bit quicker than we expected.

#1 Captain America: Civil War

If you had to criticize Civil War for one thing, it might be that it almost has too much going on in its long running time. But if what you’re looking for is a dense spectacle that reshapes a cinematic universe with recognizable characters, then Civil War absolutely had you in mind.

There were so many ways for this movie to completely fail: the villain could have been atrocious, new arrivals Black Panther and Spider-Man could have been mishandled, we could’ve gotten more Iron Man than Captain America, the emotional stakes by the very end could have come off as meaningless, and so on. But while it stumbles at times, Civil War pulls all of this off in an entertaining, often thrilling way.

And close to everything we love most in the Marvel Cinematic Universe had a time to shine, paid off after years of buildup and patience. Similar to how a comic book event can impact longtime readers, this was worthy of its title and then some.

Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar.

It’s time for our first annual Oscar Bait Breakdown on the Now Conspiring podcast, but that’s not all we covered this week. We also did a full Show and Tell, which included more new movies than ever thanks to our alarming movie theater habit…

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: Which Oscar bait movies are you excited to see, and which fictional characters do you imagine when you hear our podcast voices?

Let us know your thoughts (and your favorite podcast moments) in the comments, which we may read on next week’s show! Also, don’t forget to follow us on Facebook so you can send us direct messages and get podcast updates crazy fast. And be sure to subscribe on iTunes and/or Stitcher, where you can also rate/review the podcast if you like it!

And we’re back. The Now Conspiring hiatus is over, and we have a lot to talk about, like how much we like (and dislike) some recent movies and TV shows. Arrival, Moana, and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them are all highlights, but as always, Sam talks about something I’ve already forgotten about.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: Did you watch Doctor Strange and if so, did you like it?

Let us know your thoughts (and your favorite podcast moments) in the comments, which we may read on next week’s show! Also, don’t forget to follow us on Facebook so you can send us direct messages and get podcast updates crazy fast. And be sure to subscribe on iTunes and/or Stitcher, where you can also rate/review the podcast if you like it!

I’m a bit at a loss with Cars 3 so far, except to point out two key things Pixar is trying to say with this initial advert:

This isn’t Cars.

This isn’t Cars 2.

Specifically, this trailer seems to promise a darker, more visceral movie, perhaps because the younger views of the previous films have grown up with these toys and might be ready for something more mature (and cars crashing on the race track is a grisly, sadly familiar sight). And that’s not even mentioning how much sharper and more visually arresting the visuals are here.

The trailer doesn’t mention this, but the movie will partly focus on Lightning McQueen’s memory of Doc Hudson, who passed between Cars and Cars 2. We’ll also see most of the characters from Radiator Springs again, which probably includes Tow Mater (voiced by Larry the Cable Guy), though that isn’t confirmed. It’s too early to tell at this point what the extent of this “crash” will be for McQueen, and it’s smart to avoid showing his face at all to sell the new tone.

I understand that there’s a lot of disdain for the Cars franchise among even the most ardent Pixar lovers. It’s hard to deny that Cars 2 was anything short of a cash grab, made to bank on the surprising merchandising success of the first film, this time starring the comedic sidekick. But I happen to be one of the fans who grew up loving the first Cars, considering it one of my favorites growing up because it came out around the time I was learning to drive. If Cars 3 is anywhere close to being as affecting as that movie, then I’ll personally be satisfied.

Moana is a triumphant return to form for Disney that improves upon just about everything the studio has set up through both its recent surge of Pixar-esque entertainment, as well as the musical favorites of recent years. It’s a highlight that owes much of its existence to the success of Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, and Frozen, though perhaps even more directly to the 90s classics younger critics like myself grew up with. Make no mistake, though, Moana is its own quirky, beautiful masterwork.

You can watch the full review above or read a transcription published here.

Grade: A+

Extra Credits:

The movie stars Auli’i Cravalho as Moana and Dwayne Johnson as Maui. It was directed and co-written by Ron Clements, co-directed by Don Hall, John Musker, and Chris Williams, and the screenplay is by Jared Bush.

Ron Clements and John Musker sound familiar? They made The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and Hercules, among some other hand-drawn Disney films. This is their first feature-length computer-animated movie.

Original songs by Lin-Manuel Miranda, Opetaia Foa’i, and Mark Mancina.

If Moana wins an Oscar for its music, then Miranda will be the third person ever to achieve a PEGOT (Pulitzer, Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, Tony).

Moana is the first Disney princess not based on an existing fairy tale or legend, unless you count Merida from Brave as a Disney princess.

I didn’t cover this in the review, but Cravalho (who voices Moana) is an incredible talent for such a young age. At 14, she’s the youngest Disney Princess voice ever.

“Moana” means “ocean or sea” in Polynesian culture, and it’s a common word for “blue.”

Alan Tudyk voices the animal sidekick in this film, which is notable because this is the fifth consecutive animated Disney movie he’s worked in, starting with Wreck-It Ralph.

Easter eggs: The only one I managed to catch is Maui transforming into Sven, from Frozen. Also, Moanais referenced in Zootopia as a DVD called “Meona.”

Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar.

I’ve yet to be as wowed by French-Canadian director Denis Villenueve as many other film lovers, but there is one thing this filmmaker deserves real credit for: adaptation. His mastery of other people’s ideas is an art unto itself, as he’s able to take what doesn’t work in, say, a Nolan film like Interstellar, and hit the landing on a science fiction emotion-core that makes Matthew McConaughey look like Peter Griffin in comparison.

Prisoners was his David Fincher archetype, then Sicario was his love letter to the Coen Brothers, but Arrival is even more different than these moody eye-candy pieces. It’s everything you liked about Interstellar and Contact without a lot of the bad. It’s the sentiment of The Martian without the hard science, and it’s the vision of Close Encounters without the wonder.

Set in our very near future and based on a short story by Ted Chiang, Arrival is about a linguistics expert, Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams) who is drafted to translate the language of unidentified aliens on large, unassuming ships. They show up on Earth unannounced and without much of an impact, except the one made by humanity’s reaction, and Louise has to work with the stalwart military and mathematician Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) in order to understand the aliens’ language and ultimately, their purpose for coming to Earth.

Much of the movie focuses on this delicate process, forcing us to sit through methodical precautions the scientists have to take before they can step foot on the gravity-defying ship. It’s here that the movie has its best moments, allowing cinematographer Bradford Young (Selma) to establish the wide open spaces and thick fog of Montana that set up how massive this arrival is, and Adams is a consistently believable surrogate for our ongoing observations of these mysteries.

Watching these mysteries unfold, however, is where I suspect some viewers will be turned off, because I certainly was. There’s a grand twist involved that I saw coming far too early to appreciate, disrupting my overall experience because every step after this realization was predictable. It’s here that the puzzle became shown for how drawn out much of Arrival is, and though it’s not unbearable, I couldn’t help but wonder if there was a subgenre the film was presenting that I couldn’t grasp onto.

Arrival is real sci-fi, and its other genres include esoteric themes like discovery, cooperation, and smart people being smart (which I generally love). What usually improves a film like this is something strong like thriller or horror, but Arrival manages to glide by on pure drama (or the illusion of it, at least). Many viewers will be moved by the film, perhaps even to tears and especially if they’re parents, but there’s also a lot of cerebral content here as well, including an existential question that is sure to divide couples who see this film together (and for the right reasons).

Despite its inherent beauty and the usual trappings that make Villenueve’s work stand out amidst many other fall releases, I walked away from Arrival feeling more uncurious than I was before, and almost a bit slighted by how unfascinating its resolution turned out, even as I allowed myself to get swept up in the score and Adams’ effortless visage of hope and satisfaction. This is the kind of movie just begging to be rewatched, so you can uncover even more details the twist illuminates, but by the end of it, I felt quite done with the story, which felt less inviting for interpretation, and more like a complete thought you may or may not be interested in.

Grade: B+

Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar.

Our most recent episode of The Pixar Detectives was honestly a somber one, as we recorded just a day after the election. We used this timing as an opportunity to open up about our Pixar stories, specifically having to do with what the movies have done for our lives over the years in meaningful ways.

I’m fully aware, of course, that some might find this a bit frivolous. But I really believe that cinema (and stories at large) have a real impact on us. They inform and shape us in a lot of ways, especially early in life, and Pixar’s hand in our own upbringings is quite relevant for that reason, even though some of you may not have grown up with these movies in the same way.

That said, I hope you enjoy this episode we recorded live on Super News, and be sure to tune in to our next live episode tonight, which is all about Moana. We’ll be recording live from our exclusive screening of the film and will also be answering all of your spoiler-free questions after we’ve seen it. Looking forward to seeing you all tonight!

Be sure to like Super News on Facebook, so you can get notified when we go on the air (it will probably just after 9:00 p.m. Pacific Time). And if you watch live, you’ll be able to comment with us along the way and take part in our weekly giveaway (last week, we gave away a copy of Finding Dory on Blu-Ray).